You a spokesperson for b hole?
If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You a spokesperson for b hole?
I asked a questionIf you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.
Helps us to fight all those Communists and BLM loving Marxists.How does Finland and Sweden joining NATO benefit the US?
It's just another "notch in their belt" so they can claim they are fighting Joe Biden's agenda.JFC, fvcking sad how many garbage ass poster defend or try to reason voting no. Should be ashamed.
I asked a question
Clearly you are incapable of differentiating facts from propaganda.Clearly you are a student of history. Just not World War I. Or World War
How does Finland and Sweden joining NATO benefit the US?
Clearly you are incapable of differentiating facts from propaganda.
Isolationism never caused our entry into either world war. Isolationists don’t get involved in wars halfway around the world.
No. It’s never necessary to get involved. Our masters get involved because there’s money to be made.Isolationism didn’t protect American sailors, merchant marines and civilians from getting killed by Germans in world war either.
Sometimes it’s necessary to get involved even if things don’t directly involve you.
So you a spokeswoman for b hole?I responded to your question "you a spokesman for b hole?". Quit acting stupid if you can.
No. It’s never necessary to get involved. Our masters get involved because there’s money to be made.
Clearly you are incapable of differentiating facts from propaganda.
Isolationism never caused our entry into either world war. Isolationists don’t get involved in wars halfway around the world.
Vigilance does not equal war mongering and profiteering. ‘We’ helped destroy Hitler and the Nazis which then paved the way for Communism to fill the void and slaughter tens of millions of innocent people.
While I am in favor of Sweden and Finland joining, there are lots of good reasons to worry about making the largest military power in the history of the world even stronger.
Personally, I'd rather see the power reside in more democratic organizations, like the EU and UN.
While I'm sure you can find nice words about rights and democracy in NATO's documents, it is not fundamentally concerned with those values. It's a military organization.
You're arguing how restricting supply can raise prices. Sure. Everybody knows that.No one has explained why they feel I'm wrong, because they can't. If you don't know how making it harder to extract and deliver oil raises its price, you need to take an economics class.
Yes, the UN should be improved. But the general idea of the UN is vastly superior to that of NATO.The UN where Russia sits on the security council and has a veto?
Yes, the UN should be improved. But the general idea of the UN is vastly superior to that of NATO.
And let's remember that the US basically controls the UN. We almost always get our way in the SC. Sure, Russia and China sometimes eff up our plans, and sometimes they are evil, but we are far from being saints.
If you check the SC votes, we do, in fact, get pretty much what we want.I don't think we are saints but we don't just get our way in the security council because each member has veto power.
The UN is not useful for any sort of military alliance or defense.
NATO is.
They did. You just ignored it.No one has explained why they feel I'm wrong, because they can't. If you don't know how making it harder to extract and deliver oil raises its price, you need to take an economics class.
Jesus, you're a moron. No one is saying isolationists went out and dropped some bombs to start a war. It was our isolationism that allowed the rise of the Axis powers. Much like today, walking away from NATO would only embolden Russia. That's the point of this conversation. If you can't even grasp that, just go away. You're nothing but a troll, anyway. I don't know why I waste my time.Clearly you are incapable of differentiating facts from propaganda.
Isolationism never caused our entry into either world war. Isolationists don’t get involved in wars halfway around the world.
I think you mean non-interventionalism, which is different than isolationism, though the effect is often the same.Jesus, you're a moron. No one is saying isolationists went out and dropped some bombs to start a war. It was our isolationism that allowed the rise of the Axis powers. Much like today, walking away from NATO would only embolden Russia. That's the point of this conversation. If you can't even grasp that, just go away. You're nothing but a troll, anyway. I don't know why I waste my time.
Russia is the one that’s been doing the invading.Expanding nato should have never happened. All it does is make Russia nervous. Those countries have been invaded so many times they suffer from PTSD.
do Americans really want To risk global thermal nuclear war where maybe a billion people are incinerated over Latvia?
I don’t.
You are such a simpleton. Just because someone is against isolationism (or non-intervention @Finance85) doesn't automatically make them a warhawk. In the Bushes' case, it so happened that they were. But supporting NATO in the face of an aggressive and expansive Russia does not. Not everything is black and white to match your talking points. You have the geopolitical understanding of a 2nd grader.This place is comical.
Take Bush, Inc. for example. Both Pappy and Dubya warned of the dangers of isolationism. Which is weird because Prescott Bush was a known financier of the Nazi war machine.
Was he a Nazi? Doubtful. Just a smart man of questionable morality who knew how to play the game. War = $$$$$
Napoleon, WWI, and WWII. Your knowledge of history goes all the way back to January?Russia is the one that’s been doing the invading.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world"You are such a simpleton. Just because someone is against isolationism (or non-intervention @Finance85) doesn't automatically make them a warhawk. In the Bushes' case, it so happened that they were. But supporting NATO in the face of an aggressive and expansive Russia does not. Not everything is black and white to match your talking points. You have the geopolitical understanding of a 2nd grader.
A. I don't think we should base our foreign policy on a couple quotes from dudes that are over 2 centuries old. This was written when European nations still thought they could control the course of the United States. Both of these men held slaves, they aren't infallible in their thinking.“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world"
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
I always thought he was as well. I can't remember who let the cat out of the bag though.
No. It’s never necessary to get involved. Our masters get involved because there’s money to be made.
“Extraordinary emergencies”. 🤣A. I don't think we should base our foreign policy on a couple quotes from dudes that are over 2 centuries old. This was written when European nations still thought they could control the course of the United States. Both of these men held slaves, they aren't infallible in their thinking.
B. Washington followed up with talk of "temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." I'd say Russia invading Ukraine meets that definition.
C. In the same speech, Washington also warned against hyper-partisanism between political parties. How are you doing with that part?
D. Jefferson also said, "... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." It's written on his tomb. Even he realized that every single quote he made shouldn't be used as gospel centuries later.
The worst thing is that you think you're smart because you use the right talking points.
Are you really stupid enough to think Sean Penn is somehow working for the military industrial complex? And are you really saying Zelensky is a communist? You really are a complete imbecile, that doesn't even make sense.“Extraordinary emergencies”. 🤣
What else would bring a bunch of A-list celebs like Sean Penn, Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie, ad nauseam, right into the center of the hot zone in a war ravaged country for photo ops with macho Comrade Zelenskyy?
Follow the money; it’s ALWAYS the money.
Are you really stupid enough to think Sean Penn is somehow working for the military industrial complex? And are you really saying Zelensky is a communist? You really are a complete imbecile, that doesn't even make sense.
Meh, that's why I come onto HORT sometimes. In my professional life I'm not allowed to berate idiots.You can write a novel, or as I summarized my above response, appropriately to someone incapable of presenting an intelligent debate; dumb!
Now, you will continue with this mullethead for who-knows-how-long and accomplish nothing since it is simple bantering.